08/22/2002 Archived Entry: "The Emerging Democratic Majority; Regional Politics"
Steve Neal, Fate may smile on Democrats, has read The Emerging Democratic Majority which uses census data, voting abstracts and exit polls as their primary source material in explaining how the United States is changing demographically and politically... to explain how power is shifting in this country: As the electorate becomes more diverse, it is also more likely to be Democratic.
Judis and Teixeira make a compelling case that the Democratic Party has the more solid political base. In the three most recent presidential elections, there are 20 states in the Upper Midwest, the Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic regions, the Pacific Coast, and New England that the Democrats have carried each time, along with the District of Columbia. This provides a base of 267 electoral votes, which is just three short of an electoral college majority.
It's actually a lessor base of EV's now, 260 after the 2000 census. Indeed, it's arguable that parts of the Upper Midwest have been trending toward the Republican Party over the last decade or so-- IA, WI, MN are not near as Democratic strongholds as they once were. Although, without the Green Party's Nadar, WI & MN would probably have not been as contentious in 2000. The other trend is that the Democratic Party is emerging in the Sun Belt states-- AZ, NM, and NV. This is in large part due to the coalition that Judis and Teixiera present:
White-collar professionals, women and minorities are the key components of the new Democratic coalition, according to the authors. All three of these voting blocs were once staunchly Republican. Minorities switched from the GOP in the 1930s; women in the 1980s, and professionals in the 1990s.
Neal writes, there is something missing in this book that is still the most important part of the Democratic coalition. Judis and Teixeira have given relatively short shrift to organized labor. At least in the Great Lakes area, the Unions are becoming a much stronger election day player. Clinton and Gore's success at touching into he Union vote has been replicated by Blair in the UK. One key component of this success in 2000 --which nearly pulled Ohio out from under Bush for Gore-- is the Election Day Holiday for the 400,000 United Auto Workers. The biggest totals are for Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, with substantial numbers for Missouri, Wisconsin, New York and Illinois, too. Given that the UAF efforts probably tipped the scale toward Gore's 51-46 win over Bush, it will be interesting to watch the negotiations to further the holiday written into the contracts beyond 2002.
Replies: 37 comments
Another interesting piece in the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0821/p09s01-coop.html
Overall, both pieces are better than the garbage put out by Amy Walter and Charles Cook at CQ. Unfortunately, the media have no given much publicity to Texeira or Judis, perhaps because they are not considered mainstream. Instead a lot of publicity has been given to the at clown from Johns Hopkins University who is in favor of invading Iraq. Perhaps that is what sells.
If Sanchez runs it close in Texas, if Richardson wins in NM and the Dems take the Governor's race in Illinois, perhaps, things might change.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/22/2002 08:01 AM PST
I love this site!!! There is a an emerging Democratic majority. Its not just on the East Coast or the West, but in the South also. Irregaurdless of the last election, and Bush's sweep of the South, we will see that especially in the South, Latino's and Blacks will come out in larger numbers because of 2000, deminishing the white vote.
Posted by Real Michaud @ 08/22/2002 08:54 AM PST
I want to report to all the latest approval numbers for Dubya.
61% Christian Science Monitor/Invester's Business
62% Ipsoid/Reid
Definite Re-Elect only 41%
63% Harris Poll
These show Dubya is about to return to the high 50's approval wise. That will allow Democrats to be more independent and confrontational with him and the congressional Republicans this fall when issues of prescription drugs, healthcare, taxes, deficit reduction, etc come up.
Posted by Ced @ 08/22/2002 09:54 AM PST
I hate to wish away the nicest part of the year here, but...Hurry Up November! Prove them correct!
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/22/2002 10:14 AM PST
Prove what correct?
Posted by Real Michaud @ 08/22/2002 12:56 PM PST
Successful political movements build upon their bases. The GOP in recent years has been contracting its base while the Dems, operating under the baleful influence of the DLC, has been alientating parts of its base.
That being said, I agree that the Dems have a greater opportunity to build a lasting majority. This is particularly true due to changing demographics, such as the increasing percentage of Hispanic voters. That trend is starting to make a difference in many states, including ones that used to be considered solid Republican, such as Arizona. The virtual death of the GOP in California, after years of trying to spite the Hispanic populace there, is a prime example.
The problem is that the Dems have yet to develop a comprehensive registration and get out the vote effort nationally. An even larger problem is that crucial parts of the Democratic base are feeling ignored or taken for granted, including Hispanics, African-Americans, environmentalists, gays and lesbians and civil libertarians.
As long the the GOP is influenced by the religious right and Wall Street (a marraige made in Hell if there ever was one) its long term prospects will dim. However, if the Dems continue to be influenced by the DLC and Wall Street they will see their opportunity to build a winning coalition dashed.
As has been mentioned on these message boards, the growing strength of third parties is a threat to the corrupt and moribund GOP and Democratic parties. Something's bound to happen when better than half the electorate fails to vote. Opportunity, therefore, may shine more on a third force(s) than for either of the old parties.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/22/2002 01:56 PM PST
"IA, WI, MN are not near as Democratic strongholds as they once were."
I would agree with IA and MN, but I don't see WI ever being a Dem stronghold. In fact, it used to be considered one of the more GOP states in the Midwest. The 2000 result was a slight return to norm from the overall long-term slow Dem trend, if anything.
"These show Dubya is about to return to the high 50's approval wise." - Ced
And when I predicted Dubya would fall into the 50's by the election, people were mostly saying "No, he'll be in the low-60's at least"
"Opportunity, therefore, may shine more on a third force(s) than for either of the old parties." - CO Pundit
I disagree. Our political system is NOT built for more than two parties. A third party can hurt a similar party. It can even do enough damage to force a party to change (and re-absorb it or lose it to the opposing faction), but no third party can possibly endure as a viable force.
Change the voting system to an instant run-off system, and that'll change.
Posted by RParker @ 08/22/2002 04:11 PM PST
The past four elections Iowa went for the Democrats as did Wisconsin and Minnesota. Minnesota went Democrat since 1976. It would be interesting to see if it turns to the GOP in 2004.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/22/2002 04:15 PM PST
Am I the only one here who doesn't wanna see a Democratic majority? :(
Posted by RWG @ 08/22/2002 05:54 PM PST
I'd rather have fast growing Nevada in my column than slowly declining Iowa. Nevada is an important harbinger because it is sort of like the California of the 21st century -- this is what most of America will look like in the coming decades: vast suburban tracts, combined with unionized service workers (Las Vegas resorts) combined with huge influx of retirees, and also hispanic and asian immigration. That Nevada is trending Dem is all the evidence you need that the GOP is in trouble over the long term.
Posted by Sammy Glick @ 08/22/2002 06:39 PM PST
Real Michaud: Sorry to be unclear. I just meant I'm hoping to see this "emerging Democratic majority" come out in full splendor in November.
In answer to RWG: Let's hope so... ;)
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/22/2002 06:41 PM PST
In response to Oregonian: Why? So you Dems can raise my taxes EVEN MORE?
BTW, Nevada is not going to the Dems. Guinn is gonna win big this year, Bush carried it, we are gonna win the new 3rd district, and you can bet on Reid going down in '04, considering his razorthin victory last time.
Posted by RWG @ 08/22/2002 07:06 PM PST
"In response to Oregonian: Why? So you Dems can raise my taxes EVEN MORE?" - RWG
No, so we don't have Republicans continue to jack up the national debt while spending insanely so that you have your taxes raised even higher to pay off the debt PLUS interest.
Posted by RParker @ 08/22/2002 07:54 PM PST
RParker: Thanks for replying to RWG. That is exactly what I was going to say.
Also, I'm tired of the richest tiers and corporations getting break after break.
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/22/2002 11:07 PM PST
Since when was Iowa ever a Democratic stronghold? For God sakes, Harkin was one of only 2 Dem Senators EVER re-elected in the 20th Century, and Vilsack was the forst Dem Governor in 30 years-doesn't sound like a Dem stronghold to me. That it went for Dukakis over 41 was less an endorsement of the Democrats than a repudiation of Reagan's farm policies.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/22/2002 11:33 PM PST
Oh please RParker. Don't lecture me on budgetary policy.
Y'see, it takes three bodies to pass a budget. Your party controls one of these. The Democratic Senate has to pass every appropriations bill.
Isn't it funny how Democrats always give themselves credit for budget surpluses and always blame the Republicans for budget deficits? I have to admit, Dems are so much better at playing the blame game.
But actually, there hasn't been a "true" budget surplus since the 1950's. So quit making your "Duh...Clinton gave us the largest surpluses in history! He was such a great president!" BULL! Y'see back in the 60's, LBJ wanted to cover up the huge budget deficits of his administration. So what he decided to do was count the extra Social Security receipts as regular budget receipts. This made the deficit look smaller.
Anyway, there were no budget surpluses from 1998-2001. Don't believe me? Well, consider this...why did the national debt continue to INCREASE in those years? If you have a budget surplus, your debt goes down. Or at least stays the same.
So would you Dems please quit bitching that the evil Republicans are causing budget deficits?
Now, finally, I would like to say that I am not trying to make this a Democrats vs. Republicans thing. You're right RParker. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats when it comes to extravagant spending. Neither party has any sense of fiscal responsibility. But I sure as hell don't think a Democratic majority is going to solve our budget problems!
Posted by RWG @ 08/23/2002 12:14 AM PST
RWG -
Forget ever winning a national debate with clinton over a budget. He did a FANTASTIC job of snowing everyone. Remember, this was all done when people thought $250 for a share of a company without any profits was a good idea. And we are surprised they believed a budget surplus?
Clinton did help Dems in some big ways. He brought them out of the dark ages with regards to fundraising and favoring business.
As the DEM base gets bigger, it will lose the ability to have a cogent agenda. For example, look at New York. The mayor race and gov race are classic example of what could go wrong. Minority candidates on the Dem side must attack each other in the primary, thereby alienating other minority groups. And for any minority group to get press, they must attack who? White peole. So by the time the guy or girl gets to the general election, some other minority group hates them and white people resent being blamed for eveything. Now this is a thumb nail sketch, but it is a possibility in the NY gov race, certainly.
Dem always have an advantage in that they come across as concerned and emotional. Soccer moms voted for Clinton b/c he made them feel safe. This can be a dangerous thing. Look at the current world, would you rather be assured saftey or freedom? People seem fine with giving up individual freedom for a feeling of saftey.
Posted by JIMGAGOP @ 08/23/2002 06:53 AM PST
Clinton split the white electorate. He and his buddies did not attack white people. I was in Washington on October 16, 1995, when the Million Man March was galvanizing the whites across the country and the fuels were being flamed by the OJ Verdict. Panatta advised Clinton that the best course of action for him to get re-elected was to split the white vote..north from south, old people against young, men against women. When, Gingrich came up with his budget, Clinton argued that the budget favors southern white males at the expense of good folks in Ohio and the Northeast. He also said that GOP wants to cut medicare to give tax breaks for the rich folks. It worked. So, the lesson the Democrats have to learn is not to attack the white people, but to split the white electorate. That is the biggest Clinton legacy. Al Gore failed on that front. That is why he lost the elections. The goal of the Democrats should be to divide the white electorate, by addressing the issues that would break the white community in half.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/23/2002 07:23 AM PST
In response to all your arguments the question is simple. Are we better off today than we were two years ago? I am with the majority of the electorate which believes that GOP controls the agenda.
They have been in control of the agenda for ninteen months...equivalent to six seasons in college sports. Would Ohio State University tolerate a football coach who has not turned around a program in six years and blames it all on his predecessor?
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/23/2002 07:26 AM PST
Deep in the Yankee country (if you call the Midwest and PA that)...the governor's races are clearly trending towards the Democrats, 4-1 in the major states.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20020823_120.html
Posted by Yankee @ 08/23/2002 07:36 AM PST
RWG
You are wrong, the overall debt did go down from 1998-2001 when the overall budget went into surplus. Why do you think the national debt clock was turned off? Its now back on.
The Republican party record on the economy is horrible. Every Republican administration since Hoover has a depression or a steep recession.
Every Republican administration since U.S Grant with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt has governed by trying to skew economic policies towards the highest income earners.
Guess what, it always fails, and invariably cripples the economy. It creates alot more poor people.
W's economic policies are the same old recycled garbage we got from Hayes, Harrison, Mckinley, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Reagan.
Every top economic statistics since world war II, job growth, job creation, economic growth, growth in the GDP, reduced rates of poverty have all happened under Democratic administrations. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and even Carter hold these records.
Sorry, but I've seen what works and what doesn't. republicans in the White House and in Congress haven't got a clue on the economy.
Posted by TOM @ 08/23/2002 02:46 PM PST
Wow! I have 2 people's myths to debunk! Ok...here goes!
G.C. Raj,
It is difficult for one party to "control" the agenda unless they have the White House, House, and a comfortable majority in the Senate. The fact is that the Democratic Senate (and even before it was Democratic) has been able to either kill most GOP legislation or at least water it down bigtime. Don't believe me? Look at drilling in ANWR, the size of the tax cut, the Republicans' economic stimulus package, prescription drugs, trade authority for Bush, etc. All dead. The Democratic Senate has also seriously backed up Bush's judicial nominations and other appointments. Some "control" the GOP has.
Now do the Republicans have more power? Of course they do. But they hardly "control" the agenda.
Now, am I better off than two years ago? Hmm...not much has changed for me. I guess I can't speak for anyone else. But even if my situation had gotten better/worse in the past two years, I would HARDLY give the blame/credit to the federal government, regardless of which party controlled it. Y'see, unlike you Democrats, I don't think the federal government, whether it is controlled by Democrats OR Republicans, is responsible for my well-being.
It's stupid anyway to say that the Republicans could've done anything in the past 19 months to hurt the economy. What few policy initiatives have been minor or haven't even taken effect yet. Y'know those corporate scandals?Well, guess what? Most of the corruption took place while Clinton was president (and to be fair, Republicans controlled Congress).
TOM,
You are wrong. Geez, did you even read everything I said? The budget was NEVER in surplus. What do you mean the national debt clock went away? I never saw it go away. I can assure that I went to it at least once during the period of 1998-2001. Here is proof the national debt went up...
Gross Federal Debt
(in billions of dollars)
Year
Debt
Debt Increase
1997
5,370
188
1998
5,479
109
1999
5,606
127
2000
5,629
23
2001
5,770
141
I can send you a link for more information if you would like. But if you are going to argue with me about this, please give me some ACTUAL FACTS instead of just saying "Duh...you are wrong...the budget was in surplus!" Yeah, that's REAL intelligent. I guess if you wanna believe that there were budget surpluses from 1998-2001, and you also wanna believe that Clinton singlehandedly made them happen because he is God or whatever, FINE. Myself and other intelligent people know the truth.
And since when the hell do presidents control whether the economy is good or not? I never knew that...geez! Congress has more power than the president when it comes to managing the economy, but the person in government with the most power over the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
But, if you think Presidents control whether the economy is good or not, FINE. Let's look at the past halfcentury.
FDR: Didn't get us out of the Depression. There was a recession in 1937, and unemployment was still 14 percent as late as 1940, higher than under any later GOP administration. Clearly, WWII got us out of the Depression.
Truman: High inflation, food shortages, strikes, sit-downs, etc.
Eisenhower: Inflation almost nonexistent-usually only 1% or less. Unemployment did occasionally get high, but the average for the Ike presidency was 4.9%, which is better than Clinton's. Better GDP growth than Truman administration.
Johnson: High inflation caused by dramatic increases in social spending and money for the Vietnam War. Covered up budget deficits by combining Social Security receipts with regular budget receipts, a mistake we still haven't sorted out.
Carter: Highest inflation and interest rates in American history. Unemployment often higher than 7 percent.
Reagan: Brought down inflation and oil prices dramatically. Cut interest rates in half. Despite liberal mythmaking that says otherwise, unemployment fell under Reagan. 20 million new jobs were created under the Reagan administration, or 4 for every minute Reagan was in office.
Clinton: Income inequality, child poverty, and consumer debt rose. Taxes went up to their highest rates ever in peacetime.
But like I said, Presidents don't decide whether the economy is good or not. Those are just some facts to ponder.
BTW, your party had a virtual monopoly on Congress from 1933 to 1995. So what about all the terrible economic things that happened during those times? Oh, I get it....when something bad happens, it's the GOP's fault. When something good happens, the Dems were responsible for it. Gotcha
Posted by RWG @ 08/23/2002 03:51 PM PST
Did everybody notice that RWG didn't mention that Clinton created 22 million jobs? The oil prices came down because of a fight within OPEC. Nothing Reagan did. Gee, this person is really defensive!
Posted by GA6thDem @ 08/23/2002 05:21 PM PST
"But actually, there hasn't been a "true" budget surplus since the 1950's. So quit making your "Duh...Clinton gave us the largest surpluses in history! He was such a great president!"" RWG
When did I ever say anything about Clinton giving us non-Social-Security surpluses? My argument was that GOP administrations drive up the debt like crazy, which will eventually cause you to pay HIGHER taxes to pay the damn thing plus its interest.
True, the mess with combining Social Security and the rest of the budget sucks, but your figures for debt were using amounts INCLUDING those that need to be eventually repaid to Social Security. Sure, let's use those figures instead, but that really makes your Bush boy look bad, since we went from a very tiny deficit under Clinton to a MASSIVE GIGANTIC deficit under Bush, the most significant cause of which is his tax cut. He's not giving you back your money, he's putting it on a charge card - which you are going to have to pay back with interest.
Oh, and when Social Security stops running a surplus, then your nice low interest you're paying on those tax cuts is going to have to go up significantly as it shifts to the private sector - also removing quite a bit of capital from the economy.
Give me the bad old days of Clinton then when we were running a tiny deficit (and converting higher-interest rate bonds into low-interest Social Security) then. Who knows, with a touch more intelligent economic stewardship we might even have run a surplus.
Posted by RParker @ 08/23/2002 05:28 PM PST
"Look at drilling in ANWR"
Majority of the Americans did not want it anyway, although they may have supported in Alaska.
"the size of the tax cut,"
Thank goodness.
"the Republicans' economic stimulus package,"
The GOP needs a better economic team to stimulate the economy. Perhaps folks from the Reagan team: Weidenbaum and Feldstein come to mind. Not unqualified folks such as O'Neill and Daniels. Dont mistake me. They ran their companies well, but their stewardship of the economy is a disaster.
"prescription drugs"
I do not think that either party is serious about this.
"trade authority for Bush, etc."
I am all for free trade. In fact, I am a die hard free trader. But Bush has not been faithful to this principle. His steel tariffs were essentially attempts to shield his incompetent white corporate friends from competition. His farm bill was another protectionist joke.
"All dead."
The Trade Bill Passed, and is alive and kicking.
"The Democratic Senate has also seriously backed up Bush's judicial nominations and other appointments."
I am thankful for this as well, at least in some cases, although folks such as Henry Saad should be given consideration. Particularly they should defeat Priscilla Owen, who is a product of Texas judicial incest, called judicial elections, but there is at least a 50% of chance that she will get confirmed.
"Some "control" the GOP has."
Sets the agenda in the House.
"Now, am I better off than two years ago? Hmm...not much has changed for me. I guess I can't speak for anyone else."
My mother cannot retire at 70 because her 401K has been sharply cut in the past few months.
"Y'see, unlike you Democrats, I don't think the federal government, whether it is controlled by Democrats OR Republicans, is responsible for my well-being."
That is what you say now as the GOP controls the White House. Your tune would be different if a Dem was in the White House. Would you have argued this way when Reagan made that statement? Know why I support the Dems? The GOP has more than its share of Tancredos, Lamar Smiths, Bob Stumps, Zach Wamps and George Nethercutts and other bigots. The Dems have both Byrd and Hollings but they are a dying breed, unlike Tancredos and Smiths. I do think the best folks are also in the GOP: Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahart, J.C. Watt, Chuck Hagel and John McCain. And I believe three of them fought for the country unlike the armchair military experts such as Richard Perle whom the Bush folks employ and Billy Kristol who does not even know how to handle a gun. And you can Tom DeLay to this list too.
"It's stupid anyway to say that the Republicans could've done anything in the past 19 months to hurt the economy."
No. They are too stupid to handle the situation right now. After all folks like O'Neill and Daniels do not inspire much confidence. They are the biggest bunglers.
"Y'know those corporate scandals?Well, guess what? Most of the corruption took place while Clinton was president (and to be fair, Republicans controlled Congress)."
It has been going on since the early 1980s to be fair to everyone. But, Harvey Pitt does not inspire confidence either.
And by the way, the budget was always in Surplus between 1998 and 2000, but the debt did not go away and they are two different things.
"And since when the hell do presidents control whether the economy is good or not?"
Why dont you ask this question to George Will who coached Reagan on the "better off" issue?
"Clearly, WWII got us out of the Depression."
Had Japan not attacked us, we would be like Albania today. Totally agreed.
"High inflation, food shortages, strikes, sit-downs, etc."
True, at least earlier in his Presidency.
Feel good years of Eisenhower.
You conveniently miss Nixon and Ford and go on to Carter.
"Reagan: Brought down inflation and oil prices dramatically."
Contradiction to your earlier assertion that the Fed is in control. Perhaps Paul Volker brought down the inflation with unemployment reaching 10.7% by the end of 1982, the highest in postwar years. Unemployment was higher than 7% at least until 1988.
"Clinton: Income inequality, child poverty, and consumer debt rose. Taxes went up to their highest rates ever in peacetime."
Almost no inflation and 3.8% unemployment rate when he left office, tax increase or not.
"Oh, I get it....when something bad happens, it's the GOP's fault. When something good happens, the Dems were responsible for it. Gotcha"
According to you when something bad happens, it's the Dem's fault. When something good happens, the GOP is responsible for it. Gotcha to you too! At least I have some good things to say about individual GOP members. Guess you have nothing good to say about any Democrats. Who is the partisan now?
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/23/2002 05:48 PM PST
An earlier message tagged Clinton with the charge that "Taxes went up to their highest rates ever in peacetime." In 1993, Clinton did indeed champion higher tax rates for the highest-income Americans. If one looks at the middle 20% of earners (one way of defining the "middle class"), one will find that their rate of federal taxation (including both income and Social Security taxes) has been amazingly stable for roughly the last 25 years:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-21-99taxburden.htm
Reagan provided no net tax relief to the middle 20%, nor did Clinton raise these people's taxation.
Posted by Alan @ 08/23/2002 06:22 PM PST
Yes. No knowledge of the fact that the fast track has been approved either.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/24/2002 10:23 AM PST
My point wasn't to argue about policy G.C. Raj. I never said what my opinions were about any of those things. I was just making the point that the GOP hardly "controls" the agenda considering that they rarely get what they want. You said the GOP "controlled" the agenda , and I disagreed. That's all.
I really have to wonder whether you read my entire post. I didn't say the president controlled the economy. In fact, I argued otherwise.I only wrote down those facts next to each president's name because Tom was assuming that the economy is always bad when Republicans were President and always good when Democrats were president. I was simply arguing on his level, even though I disagreed with his assertion that the president is responsible for the economy.
"Almost no inflation and 3.8% unemployment rate when he left office, tax increase or not."
Almost no inflation when he came into office. Inflation has not been a problem in a long time. 3.8%? Nope. Never was that low. It was 3.9% in October 2000, then went back up. Average for his whole administration was 5.1%, not high but not that impressive. Recession started two months after he left office. But of course, I don't hold the president responsible for the economy. I am just arguing on your level. Understand that.
Nice try Alan. Clinton's tax increase was the largest in American history, and raised taxes on anyone who made more than $20,000 a year. The college tax credit he signed in '97 hardly offset this. If Clinton's tax increase was so great, how come even HE disavowed it? BTW, I need to prove anything because the web site you linked SAID THAT TAX BURDENS HAVE GONE UP IN THE PAST FEW YEARS! Scroll to near the bottom. Also, the average tax burden in 1999, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was 47%! Does anyone here think they are getting their money's worth???
RParker: GOP administrations drive up the debt like crazy? That's funny. Last I checked, Congress had the power of the purse. True, Reagan and Bush could have vetoed spending bills (and they should have), but clearly Congress has the most control over spending.
Once again, my point is not to make this a Democrats vs. Republicans fight. I am just pointing out that you people, quite one-sidedly, blame the Republicans for all bad things and give credit to the Democrats for all good things, regardless of who controls the White House and Congress or whether those bodies even have anything major to do with the condition of the economy.
Posted by RWG @ 08/24/2002 06:13 PM PST
"the web site you linked SAID THAT TAX BURDENS HAVE GONE UP IN THE PAST FEW YEARS! Scroll to near the bottom. Also, the average tax burden in 1999, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was 47%!" - RWG
The site, of course, was using this as an example of the pitfalls of using averages instead of medians, if you had actually read the article.
"GOP administrations drive up the debt like crazy? That's funny. Last I checked, Congress had the power of the purse. True, Reagan and Bush could have vetoed spending bills" - RWG
Reagan and Bush increased spending. You even agreed with that in your first post to me. When you increase spending AND lower taxes, you get debt. Debt is influenced by two things - income AND outlay, while you are only trying to call attention to outlay.
Presidents ALSO start the budget process by submitting their requested budgets to congress. True, the congress has final say, but they usually use the President's budget as a starting point. During Reagan's term, congress also tended to spend LESS than what was in Reagan's submitted budget proposal. Spendning has skyrocketed under Bush. Especially for such stupid things as his idiotic Missle Defense System that will never work and just funnels money to his cronies.
"my point is not to make this a Democrats vs. Republicans fight. I am just pointing out that you people, quite one-sidedly, blame the Republicans for all bad things and give credit to the Democrats for all good things" - RWG
You started this discussion by stating that you didn't want Democrats to get control, because they would be evil and raise your taxes. To me, this sounds like the start of a Dem vs. GOP fight where you are blaming the Dems for a bad thing and giving credit to the GOP for a good thing.
Posted by RParker @ 08/24/2002 06:46 PM PST
"You said the GOP "controlled" the agenda , and I disagreed. That's all."
GOP does control the agenda in the House and did in the Senate until Jeffords defected. By agenda I mean deciding what to bring up for vote. DeLay does control the agenda in the House. It does not mean everything will pass. In fact, nothing may pass. Whether the President controls the economy or not, he gets credit when it is great and gets the blame when it is lousy. You actually were wrong about the Fast Track bill and I pointed this out. I read everything you said and responded to everything. It was 3.9% and not 3.8%...my mistake. The situation is very clear. If the economy does not recover substantially by 2004, Bush would be in very serious trouble. As is, at the state and local levels, a Democratic Juggernaut is in the making. I call this phenomenon the volcano. This elections will not have coattails. It could have a volcano effect...whether the volcanoe effect would be so severe as to change the control of the US House and keep the Senate in Democratic hands remains to be seen.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/25/2002 12:08 PM PST
The reason for a possible "emerging Democratic Majority"...the GOP has taken on all the trash from the Democratic Party such as Richard Perle, who conveniently avoided going to Vietnam. Read the excerpt:
"Moderate Republicans are quick to point out that neoconservatives like Perle hail from the Democratic Party originally, and often seem to display the excessive zeal of the converted."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/798832.asp
Posted by G.C, Raj @ 08/25/2002 12:24 PM PST
Presidents RECOMMEND budgets. Yeah, that's all they do. And like I said, I never said Reagan and Bush didn't deserve ANY blame. They should have indeed vetoed many spending bills.
However, the President's budget never gets passed. Congress always adds on spending. Presidents and Congress have different goals. Presidents want to balance the budget so they don't face the voters' wrath at the ballot box. However, Congress, considering that each member runs in separate elections, doesn't really care about whether there is a deficit or not. They are more concerned with getting pork to their district. And Congress did add spending to Reagan's budgets...
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6
Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8
But anyway, I'm not saying Reagan and Bush don't deserve any blame. I am just saying they share the blame with a spendaholic Congress who agreed to Reagan's buildup in defense in exchange for increases in domestic spending.
"The site, of course, was using this as an example of the pitfalls of using averages instead of medians, if you had actually read the article. "
See the bottom of the page. And I said the tax burden had gone up overall. I never said that it had gone up/down for a certain class.
"GOP does control the agenda in the House and did in the Senate until Jeffords defected. By agenda I mean deciding what to bring up for vote"
You said and I quote, "I am with the majority of the electorate which believes that GOP controls the agenda." You did not say they controlled the agenda in the House. You said they controlled the agenda PERIOD. I was pointing out that don't have that much "control" considering they can't most of their policy initiatives passed due to the Democratic Senate (and even before it was Democratic, the Democrats were able to kill many things). The fact that they can get their agenda through one house of Congress doesn't mean much considering both houses of Congress have to pass things. The Republicans do not control the agenda. Neither party controls the agenda. We are in era of divided government.
"3.9%"
Who cares what it was one month in Clinton's presidency. You conveniently pick the month in which it was the lowest. I could just as easily say unemployment under Clinton was almost 7%, as it was at one point. Who care what it was for one month. The average was 5.1%, which is pretty good. But it's not 3.9%, as you assert. Your argument is the quivalent of saying that the highest GPA a college applicant received in high school is more important than his AVERAGE GPA.
I don't know what will happen in the elections. I'm skeptical the GOP can avoid the "midterm curse." But I will you tell you one thing, if you take the House and Senate, you will be on parity with Bush. And you will no longer be able to blame the GOP for everything.
Posted by RWG @ 08/25/2002 02:16 PM PST
I am not talking about getting anything through congress. I am talking about who brings up the bills. The party in power brings up the bills.
I did not say average unemployment...I said the lowest it ever reached. Regarding students, GPA does not seem to matter anymore at least regarding employment. It is who you know.
Dont say "you"...I am not a card carrying member of the Democratic Party. But, I do agree with you regarding the last statement. I for one do not want to give all power to one party, emerging majority or not. Sure, it does not help in the appointment of judges, but most state judges, Democrat or GOP came through due to their political rather than legal instincts, due to a judicial incest called judicial elections in thirty three states and do not deserve to sit on the federal bench.
Now, why do I call it judicial incest? Simple. An out of state brilliant legal mind would never go anywhere in a state such as Texas or Louisiana because he or she would not have any political connections. You have to be instate and inbred to succeed in that system, which has not been good for the states and would not be good for the country.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/25/2002 02:59 PM PST
1. Adjusting for inflation, Clinton's tax increase was NOT the largest in American history (see http://www.hbcollege.com/econ/rukstad/clintonver3.pdf , page 9, by the heading "The Budget Package").
2. Even if RWG's statement that the threshold was $20,000 for when Clinton's tax increase kicked in is correct and regardless of how Clinton chose to characterize things, the fact remains that the middle 20% of income earners had total federal taxation at roughly a 20% rate all through the Clinton presidency, which is NO DIFFERENT FROM HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN SINCE 1977.
3. Thanks to RParker for responding regarding means versus medians.
Posted by Alan @ 08/26/2002 10:32 AM PST
Response to RWG;
Unemployment was 14% in 1940 and 10% in 1941.
When Roosevelt took over after 12 years of total Republican control of the White House and Congress. Unemployment was at 25%.
No, things weren't great in 1940, but they were down right idyllic compared to 1933. Republican Party economics, stock trading rules they passed, and the ridiculous Smoot-Hawley tariff almost destroyed the country.
Truman did indeed have sit down strikes, food shortages and high inflation for the first two years of his term. You have to remember, the entire economy was reverting from war production to consumer production overnite. Many foodstuffs had been rationed during the war. And there had been wage and price controls for 3 years.Businesses raised price quickly after controls were lifted.
Trumans last 6 years the economy grew like gangbusters. The 25% rise in the GDP during Trumans years has yet to be matched.
LBJ a bad economy? He left office in 1969 with 3.0% inflation, 2.0% unemployment, and a balanced budget, the last until Clinton.
W would take that record any day of the week.
The net increase in jobs under Reagan was only 12,000,000. When he took over from Carter unemployment was at 6.6%. When reaganomics was initiated unemployment soared to a post depression record on 10.9% in October 1982.
During this time Reagan initiated the largest tax increase in history with a big increase in social security taxes, gas taxes and countless others. In 1981 Reagans record tax cut for the wealthy was followed up with a record tax increase on the middle and lower classes. the net result was that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class ran in place while going into more and more debt.
The high job creation pace in the second Reagan term was largley a boom in lower paying, low benefit service sector jobs replacing good paying manufacturing jobs that vanished during reagans 1st term.
Reaganomics looked good for awhile but it was built on much of the funny money accounting schemes that the GOP's top political allies ( the S &L and the junk bond crisis).
This could not sustain itself, and collapsed under Bush Sr.
Lets compare Reagan & Clinton;
Reagan Clinton
Spending + 80% + 28%
Debt + 187% + 28%
Deficits + 112% Surplus
Crime + 48% - 50 %
Jobs Created Bush Sr. + 800,000
Bush Jr. - 1,600,00
Clinton + 23,000,000
One more thing, the Clinton tax hike in 1993, CUT taxes for a record number of poor and lower middle income people. The only tax that everbody paid was a 4 cent gas tax hike. One penny less than Reagans.
Posted by TOM @ 08/26/2002 02:36 PM PST
I agree the Hawley-Smoot tarifF was bad, but the Great Depression is attributed to that and unsound government monetary policy. Not to GOP pro-business policies. In fact, the 1920's was the most prosperous time in the history of the world up to that time. Granted, many people were in poverty. But the 1920's still saw the best living conditions ever in any part of the world up to that time. Read any book on the 1920's.
GNP growth in Truman administration was 11%, 19% in Eisenhower administration.
YOu didn't answer me. What does the president have to do with the economy?
Oh well, I guess I will just argue on your level.
Inflation was 4% when LBJ left office. Not that high by today's standards, but it was back then when the American public was used to inflation rates of 1%. And there's LBJ's budget mishap. Much of the insanely high inflation of the 1970's can be directly attributed to government spending in the Johnson administration.
Unemployment was over 7% when Reagan took over from Carter. And it went down gradually until 1990 after peaking in November 1982. But of course you wouldn't wanna say anything good about Reagan.
Here is the TRUTH about the Reagan economy-http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
So you think Democrats are better at managing the economy, huh? Okay..let's take a looksie. Let's compare the period of 1987-1995 and the period of 1995-2001. During the first, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. During the latter period, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Let's see who wins...
Unemployment
Dems: average 6.2%
GOP: average 4.8%
Budgets:
Dems: average $213 billion deficit
GOP: average $70 billion surplus (ok, fake surplus, still much better than Dems)
Bank Failures:
Dems: 2,160
GOP: 33
And it looks like the GOP has it! Sorry, I couldn't find GDP growth or inflation, but I'm sure we kicked your ass there too. I hope the American people remember the poor economic management of the LAST Democratic Congress at the ballot box this November.
Note To GOP: Ask voters if they are better off now than in January 1995.
Tax burden in 2000: 47% You Clintonites should be so proud. Hey, you are the ones who say the president is responsible for the economy!
Posted by RWG @ 08/27/2002 08:39 PM PST
It never ceases to amaze me why Republicans look to the past as the "Good Ole Days." I guess the 1920's were the heyday of the Republican Party. Yeah, lets go back to the days of child labor, Ku Klux Klan ruling the south and immense poverty. If you believe that the tax percentage in 2000 was 47%, then you must not believe the GOP line that taxes kill the economy. Maybe you are a millionaire and had 47% taxes but I did not.
Posted by GA6thDem @ 08/28/2002 06:27 PM PST
